You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1365)

PLAYS: (1340)

If it weren't Lou Dobbs saying it and knowing he always likes to take a shot at the Obama administration ever since the black man got elected and his brain exploded, I'd almost be inclined to agree with Dobbs on this one. I don't think it's "authoritarian" to want everyone to have to pay into a system that makes sure everyone is covered and has health insurance of some sort. I do agree that what Baucus is proposing looks like nothing less than making sure all of us are going to pay into the health insurance industry monopoly whether we like it or not with no assurance they're not going to still rip everyone off on premiums since there is not at least a public option in his plan.

And why in the hell is Baucus at this late date still pretending that any Republicans are going to vote for any of this? They already had the Democrats take all of their amendments and then still said they wouldn't vote for what the Democrats compromised on with the bill.

All I can say is, let me in a poker game with any of these guys since I'd go home with a pocket full of money. Never show your hand or let the other person call your bluff until you have to. And as a twenty some year union member, I can also say that the Democrats obviously haven't learned what the term "bargaining in good faith" means. They could use a few of our Business Reps showing them how not to be played for suckers when you negotiate.

I'm not sure just what Max Baucus' game is here, but I've grown tired of it. He's had months to get something done and what he's come out with is a sell out to the insurance industry. I hope to hell the Progressive Causus in the House isn't going to stand for this.

And surprise, surprise it turns out that "just when you thought the Baucus revolving door couldn’t spin faster: the Senate staffer responsible for devising the tax policies at the heart of the Baucus plan is a former lobbyist for health insurance and pharmaceutical interests, including an insurance industry front group".

Color me not shocked. Obama needs to decide which side he's on in this debate whether he cares about keeping his base. As John has said, he's going to lose the left if he sells us out.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1515)

PLAYS: (3248)

(h/t Heather.)

Robert Reich wonders why Baucus, Grassley et all are getting to decide for the nation on health care reform. We'll all pay for Obama's little experiment:

Aug. 23, 2009 | On Thursday, the so-called Gang of Six – three Republicans and three Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee – met by conference call and, according to Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee's chair, reaffirmed their commitment "toward a bipartisan healthcare reform bill" (read: less coverage and no public insurance option). The Washington Post reports that the senators shared tales from their home states, where some have been besieged by protesters angry about a potential government takeover of the nation's healthcare system.

It's come down to these six senators. The House has reported a bill, as has another Senate committee, but all eyes are fixed on Senate Finance – and on these three Dems and three Republicans, in particular. But who, exactly, anointed these six to decide the fate of the nation's healthcare?

I don't get it. Of the three Republicans in the gang, the senior senator is Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. In recent weeks Grassley has refused to debunk the rumor that the House's healthcare bill will spawn "death panels," empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die. At an Iowa town meeting last Tuesday Grassley called the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi "intellectually dishonest" for claiming the opposite. On Thursday Grassley told the Washington Post that Congress should scale back its efforts to overhaul healthcare in the wake of intense anger at town hall meetings. But – wait – the anger is largely about distortions such as the "death panels" that Grassley refuses to debunk.

This week on Fox News, Grassley termed the House bill "the Pelosi bill," and called it "a government takeover of healthcare, exploding the deficit because it's not paid for and it's got high taxes in it."

No, it will explode the deficit because the Blue Dogs fought the Medicare reimbursement rate successfully and as a result, the so-called public option will now cost as much as regular insurance. And because WalMart successfully fought for a grandfather clause that will enable them to provide the crappy, bare-bones insurance they always did, but competitors will have to pay for the real insurance. (Oh, and those workers will now be kicked on Medicaid and forced to take WalMart's crappy plan. Good times!)

But I digress.

Reich continues:

I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control 60 votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass healthcare legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax-cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no healthcare reform bill without a public option.

So why does the fate of healthcare rest in Grassley's hands?

It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems in the gang are from Montana, New Mexico and North Dakota – states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.

So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that's what I'm repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the administration. "The Finance Committee is where the action is. They'll tee up the final bill," says someone who should know.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (110)

August 19, 2009 News Corp

VAN SUSTEREN: Voters want answers on health care. What they don't want is for the Democrats to go it alone. Now, according to one poll, 59 percent of people say Congress should not approve a health care plan if it's not bipartisan. But will the Democrats go it alone anyway, shut Republicans out of the health care debate? The New York Times reports that Democrats do not think the GOP is going to cooperate on health care reform. The Times quotes White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying, "The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."

In a press briefing today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pulled back from the report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are focused on a process that continues in the Senate with both parties. The president again met with Senator Baucus on Friday in Montana, and they discussed the progress that was being made among Democrats and Republicans on the Finance Committee. That's our focus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator Chuck Grassley is ranking Republican member of the "Gang of six," a bipartisan group of senators working for a deal in the Senate on the health care bill. and according to The New York Times, the White House sees criticism by Senator Grassley as a sign there is little hope of reaching a bipartisan deal. Is that true?

Senator Grassley joins us live. Good evening, Senator. And is there little hope of a bipartisan deal, sir?

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: I haven't given up yet, and I haven't said anything new since we adjourned for the summer break that I've been saying for the last three months. So for the White House to draw any conclusions other than what I've told the president right to his face -- and I've said a couple things that are very important, and I've said them before. I've told him for several weeks that, number one, it would really help get bipartisanship if he would make a statement that he would sign a bill that didn't have a public option, or what some of us call a government-run health plan, in it.

And the second one was, in response to a question he asked me about would I be (ph) three or four Republicans going along with the Democrats to make a bipartisan issue, and on that issue, I answered him the same way I've been telling a lot of people for three or four months, that I would not go along because that's not bipartisan.

What you have to have when you're rejiggering one sixth of our U.S. economy, and when you're dealing with health care because that's life-and- death issue for every American, affecting every American citizen, it's got to be done with lots of Democrats and a lot of Republicans, and that's bipartisanship. And it's my responsibility to do something that would get broad support among Republicans, and it's Senator Baucus's Republican to get something that would get broad support among Democrats.

Continue reading »

"When I say jump, you say, 'How high?'"

That would be Chuck "Don't Let Them Pull the Plug on Grandma" Grassley. Why does Obama want Republican approval so badly? Protective cover for the watered-down version he promised Big Pharma and the insurance companies?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The lead Republican senator in bipartisan health care negotiations said Tuesday that he urged President Obama this month to make clear he would accept a bill without a government-funded public insurance option.

"I told the president then that he needed to make public whether or not he could sign a bill that didn't have a public option in it," Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said on Radio Iowa. "He didn't have to take a position against a public option, but would he sign a bill that wouldn't have a public option in it, and I thought a statement from him would be very helpful."

Grassley and the five other bipartisan negotiators met with the president on August 6 to discuss their efforts toward a health care bill that can pass the Senate Finance Committee in September, when Congress returns from its August recess.

On Saturday, Obama said the "public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform."

Then on Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said a public option is "not an essential element" of overhauling the health care system.

Why is President Obama so much more concerned with what Republicans want? It's a mystery!

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1348)

PLAYS: (4881)

I went to the Arlen Specter/Joe Sestak Q&A panel today at Netroots Nation that was led by our own Susie Madrak. Specter answered questions about why we should trust him since he switched parties and he made his case. He's a skilled politician and did a pretty good job trying to defend his lefty creds. We didn't act like the Beckerwocky teabaggers do and he was treated with dignity, even if most of the audience supports Joe.

When he was questioned about Chuck Grassley's ""We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma" he adamantly said Grassley was wrong and he said he would speak to him later today. I yelled out "call him now!" and several other audience members also yelled the same thing. I waved my phone and said, "You can use my cell phone!" He said he would call him right away.

I followed him to the back of the arena and a bunch of us surrounded him as he made good on his promise. He tried to reach Grassley, but got no answer. As he was leaving, I was able to ask Specter if President Obama should kick Grassley out of the negotiating position he has for spreading egregious statements and falsehoods about health care.

Specter said that we shouldn't kick Grassley out of the Finance committee because senators are wrong at times, but he promised to stay after Grassley. I think Obama should have Baucus kick him out of the negotiating process because he's violated his duty by spreading lies about a health care bill he's trying to legislate over.

UPDATE:

John Amato: Senator, one more quick question. I'm John Amato of CrooksandLiars. Does Senator Grassley's irresponsible statements and the fact that he's on the committee that's negotiating for this health care bill, doesn't that disqualify him, in other words, shouldn't Obama say, why should I even have him at the table if he's going to make such outrageous statements?

Specter: Does it disqualify him, no. When he made that statement, it's wrong. If you disqualified every Senator who is wrong about something, there wouldn't be any Senators.OK?..

Well, now Specter and Grassley are involved in a Twitter war:

Well, Grassley never picked up. So Specter tweeted all about it.

And Grassley is not pleased.

And in a narrow sense, Grassley's right. He didn't use the term "death boards" or "death panels." He said "There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear.... We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

But in the broader sense, Specter's got Grassley pegged.

Citizen journalism rocks! We proved that once again.

For those of you who follow the inside baseball, National Journal has a look at the Republican strategy on healthcare reform: Delay, misinform, obfuscate... You know, the usual:

Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking member, is the influential wild card among Senate Republicans, and he covets his reputation for independence. McConnell stays in close touch with the folksy Midwesterner, eager to keep him in the GOP fold. Many congressional observers have decided that Grassley is negotiating in good faith with Democrats to see if he can help get a reasonable bill out of Finance, but these sources expect him to reject a conference report later this year if it moves too far left.

In an interview, Grassley contended that Republicans should be delighted that he's on the job. "If they wonder whether or not our being involved [in the Finance talks] is doing any good, wouldn't you rather have a conservative Republican at the table than have nobody at the table?" he asked. "And secondly, hasn't our party, plus the grassroots of America, been pleading for time to study [legislation]? And suppose I was not at the table: There would be debate on the floor of the Senate, not in the Finance Committee."

Grassley said that Republican leaders asked him to block any Democratic moves to ration health services or implement a public option, although he tentatively supports a public cooperative that is not government-run. "So, the two things that Republicans are most concerned about -- the public option and rationing -- ain't going to be in it," he concluded.

Asked about his balancing act with Grassley, McConnell said that his colleague has been "very open" with the caucus. "I think it's been just fine," McConnell said of the Finance discussions. "I do read that some of the Democrats may not be that happy with it. But I don't think I have felt, nor do I think most of my members have felt, that they were trying to hide the ball on us."

Meanwhile, his "reputation for independence" is looking a little compromised. The New York Times:

"Some Republicans have begun to warn that Mr. Grassley should tread carefully on the health care bill if he wants to become the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee."

Politico:

"The three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are under pressure from their leadership not to cut a deal too quickly .. and that message has been delivered frequently in recent weeks."

The Hill:

"Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, has assured his GOP colleagues that he will not sell them out and strike a private deal with Democrats on healthcare reform."

[...] On Wednesday morning Senator Grassley said, the group was "on the edge" of agreement. But later in the day he walked those comments back, saying, "I think we’re on the edge of getting something. Now, when I say ‘on the edge,’ that could be within a week. It could be within two weeks, or it might not be until we get back after Labor Day."

Awww. I think it's sweet that they let him think he's independent -- and that Max Baucus is playing along with it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (90)

PLAYS: (286)

Charles Grassley is the subject of Ed Schultz's Psycho Talk segment for this statement he made over at IA town hall: Grassley tells constituent: If you want good health insurance, ‘go work for the government.’

During a townhall in Waukon, IA Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was asked by a constituent of his: “Why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?” When Grassley struggled to explain the details of his own health care plan, the elderly man followed up, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?” Grassley said, “You can. Just go work for the federal government.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1112)

PLAYS: (1645)

Charles Grassley is starting to sound as incoherent during his television interviews as he does in his Tweets. Grassley doesn't think we need more regulation. We just need more transparency. Yeah, that's going to make the finace companies behave. And when asked if the banks are in any position to protest if they're not going to make as much money, Grassley comes back with this:

Greed is human nature. We shouldn't blame greed any more than you'd blame gravity when a plane has an accident and goes down.

I'm sorry Senator, but I think we can blame greed for the mess we're in. Greed and the unwillingness of the government to put a check on it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (53)

PLAYS: (148)

h/t Media Matters

MSNBC cleans up Charles Grassley's tweets. MSNBC's version in the screen shot above. Actual tweets below. Your librul media in action folks.

UPDATE: From The Plum Line, what Grassley claims he really meant. As Greg Sargent notes there:

A good deal clearer, though perhaps not quite as colorful. One of these days Senators will figure out that tweets are, you know, public statements that are read by lots and lots of people, including reporters.

Isn't it great, how our SEC is such an ardent watchdog of Wall Street's wrongdoing?

CBS News has learned that two attorneys at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are under "active" criminal investigation by the FBI for trading stocks based on inside information.

Accusations against the two lawyers - a man and a woman whose names have not been released - are detailed in a report by the SEC inspector general obtained exclusively by CBS News.

The report, based on a review and analysis of "more than two years of e-mail and brokerage records," puts increased pressure on a commission that has come under fire lately for failing to detect the $60 billion Bernard L. Madoff Ponzi scheme, and turning a blind eye to the Wall Street financial crisis.

"We ought to be outraged if there is one insider trading information that’s leading to personal profit," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CBS News.

In response to the IG report, Grassley sent a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro expressing that outrage and requesting detailed information about the stock holdings and trading practices of all SEC employees.

"It’s hard to imagine a more serious violation of the public trust than for the agency responsible for protecting investors to allow its employees to profit from non-public information about its enforcement activities," Grassley said in his letter to Schapiro.

According to the report, the male attorney under investigation by the FBI works in the Office of the SEC's Chief Counsel and "has access to a tremendous amount of nonpublic information."

The report alleges both the male attorney and female attorney - who works in the enforcement division - "traded in the stock of a large financial services company" despite being told by another SEC employee of ongoing "investigations of that company." The report calls this is a direct violation of SEC rules.

DOWNLOAD (84)

PLAY (78)

(h/t CSPANjunkie)

You stay classy, Chuck Grassley:

Marking up budget legislation can be a brutal affair, often beginning early and lasting long into the night.

But buried within the hours of debate in the Senate on Thursday is an exchange you'd be more likely to hear in a locker room than a congressional hearing.[..]

The back-and-forth came after Grassley, the ranking Republican on the finance committee, pressed Conrad to include an amendment of his. "I'd like to suggest to the chairman that he might want to support this because, you remember, you asked me two years ago not to take a vote on it and you said if we did take a vote on it you might not get your budget resolution adopted. So I did not ask for a vote on it and you said it was a very statesmanlike thing for me to do at that particular time and so I would hope that you would return the favor," said Grassley.

"You know, I used to like you. Let me just say: Oh, you are good," said Conrad.

"Well, your wife said the same thing." [responded Grassley]

Conrad didn't miss a beat. "She did, she said you were the biggest hit of all the speakers at the event," he replied.

What in the hell is going on with the Republican Party? Sure, they're effectually leaderless--because Rush Limbaugh doesn't dirty his fingers with actual details like the budget--but is it too much to ask that they not devolve into lame insult comics while doing the people's business?

DOWNLOAD (47)

PLAY (113)

From Face the Nation March 22, 2009.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told CBS News’ Harry Smith on Face The Nation Sunday that the executive branch ought to use its leverage as a majority shareholder in AIG to sue the company for its wrongful use of retention bonuses.

Retention bonuses are to a great extent extortion, Frank argued. “I think there was an element, frankly, with some — not all of them — of almost extortion, where they said, 'We know what you need to know and we will quit if you don’t bribe us,'” Frank said.

He argued that there is a large pool of very talented people who have lost their jobs in the financial crisis and that AIG could replace the bonus recipients (some of whom are responsible for creating the firm's now-toxic assets) rather than bribe them with retention bonuses.

Rough transcript to follow.

Continue reading »